R. v. Montgomery

R. v. Montgomery

The authorization P12/2010 was valid: the September 22 investigation was distinct from E‑Piquet so applicants were not required to be named as knowns, the affidavit established investigative necessity and met full and frank disclosure standards, omission of E‑Piquet was not material or misleading, and the proximity clause was not overly broad; therefore the applications to set aside the authorization were dismissed.

Citation
2013 BCSC 1009
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Clifford Roger Montgomery; Accused: Tariq Mohammed Aslam; Accused: Salvador Ascencio-Chavez
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire (authorization Challenge)
Outcome
Applications dismissed; authorization P12/2010 upheld
Legal Topics
Wiretap Authorization, Investigative Necessity, Material Non Disclosure, Naming of Known Persons, Minimization Conditions
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Search and Seizure Evidence Wiretap Authorization Investigative Necessity Material Non Disclosure Naming of Known Persons +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Clifford Roger Montgomery

Accused

Tariq Mohammed Aslam

Accused

Salvador Ascencio-Chavez

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire (authorization Challenge)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether accused should have been named as knowns in the wiretap authorization
  2. 2 Whether the affiant demonstrated investigative necessity for interception
  3. 3 Whether omission of the E‑Piquet investigation amounted to material non-disclosure or misleading evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The authorization P12/2010 was valid: the September 22 investigation was distinct from E‑Piquet so applicants were not required to be named as knowns, the affidavit established investigative necessity and met full and frank disclosure standards, omission of E‑Piquet was not material or misleading, and the proximity clause was not overly broad; therefore the applications to set aside the authorization were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed; authorization P12/2010 upheld

Orders

  • Applications of Clifford Roger Montgomery and Tariq Mohammed Aslam to set aside authorization P12/2010 are dismissed